Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,418 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 350,322
Pageviews Today: 450,655Threads Today: 83Posts Today: 1,556
03:34 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.

 
The Professor
User ID: 660063
United States
01/02/2010 02:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Christians insist that Christ MUST be of the seed of David. Since it must be conceded that Joseph is not the father of Jesus, the only way to establish that Christ is of the seed of David is to prove that His mother Mary is a descendant of David. However, the Bible offers no evidence of this. The Bible gives only two genealogies for Christ. The first is found in Matthew, and the second in Luke. Here are both genealogies purportedly tracing Christ to King David (edited for brevity):

Matthew 1:6-16:

“And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam.....And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23-31

“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli....which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David”

As anyone can see, these verses tell nothing of Mary's ancestors. Absolutely nothing. This would the first time in all the history of the world that a woman's lineage is given without mentioning the woman. What makes this whole thing funny is that when you compare the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke you will find several contradictions:

First, Mathew claims that the father of Joseph (Mary's husband) is Jacob, while Luke claims Joseph's father was Heli. Matthew 1:16 says: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” However, Luke 3:23 says: “ And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.”

Second, Matthew traces Joseph's linage through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), whereas Luke traces it through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). Of course, both passages cannot be true since that would be biologically impossible. It reminds me of that old song, “I'm My Own Grandpa.”

Third, both Matthew and Luke clearly trace the ancestry of Joseph. If the same ancestry applies to Mary, then Mary, the mother of Jesus, was intimately involved with her own brother or half-brother. Anyone who has read the Old Testament knows this is a no-no.

The only specific Biblical reference to Mary's genealogy is found in Luke 1:36, which says that Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, and Luke 1:5 which says that Elisabeth was of the daughter of Aaron (of the house of Levi, not Judah). Since one's ancestry is traced through male descendants, and not female, Luke shows that Mary would of the tribe of Levi just as her cousin Elisabeth was, and not of the tribe of Judah as David was. The Qur'an states clearly that Mary was in fact of the daughters of Aaron, from the tribe of Levi:

“And she came to her people with him, carrying him [Jesus] with her. They said: O Marium [Mary]! surely you have done a strange thing. O sister of Haroun [Aaron]! your father was not a bad man, nor, was your mother an unchaste woman.” See the Qur'an, Sura 19, Ayat 27, 28 (explanatory insertions my own).

There is another another major problem with claiming that Matthew traces Mary's ancestry back to King David. In Matthew 1:12, the given lineage from King David to Joseph (and supposedly to Mary) includes Jechonias. Now the Old Testament prohibits any seed of Jechonia (a.k.a. Jechonias and Coniah) from ascending to the throne of David:

“Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” (Jeremiah 22:28-30).

Of course, there is also an additional problem with Luke's account of Christ's ancestry. Luke traces Mary's genealogy to King David through David's son Nathan; however, the Old Testament says that the Messiah would be the seed of David's other son Solomon (1 Chronicles 28:5; 1 Chronicles 29:1 and 1 Chronicles 29:24). So even of the lineage given in Luke applied to Mary (which it does not), her son is not qualified to sit on the throne of David.

In conclusion, there is nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - in the Bible which traces Mary's lineage to King David. But if I'm wrong, answer this one question for me: What is the name of Mary's father? Or try this one: Where in the Bible does it specifically state that Mary was of the house of David? If you have found such a reference, I will confess to the world that you are more knowledgeable about the Bible than I am. All you have to do is cite the verse which supports your claim.

The best that any Christian can do is to make an illogical claim that Mary had to be of the lineage of David because she was Christ's mother and Christ had to be of the lineage of David. That nonsense doesn't work for me or anyone else with at least the minimal cognitive abilities of the average 12-year old.

There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, if anything, the Bible proves He is not.
Sir Marmaduke Tweng

User ID: 773761
United Kingdom
01/02/2010 02:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
What is the name of Mary's father?

 Quoting: The Professor 660063

mm Kevin?

Last Edited by Sir Marmaduke Tweng on 01/02/2010 02:38 AM
Egger of the Prophets of the Lard and pooh pooh on your JuJu since 1000000 B.C.E

This is how Liberty dies-To the sound of rapturous applause...

Proud member of the GLP Atheist Alliance
seraph
User ID: 851849
United States
01/02/2010 02:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Christians insist that Christ MUST be of the seed of David. Since it must be conceded that Joseph is not the father of Jesus, the only way to establish that Christ is of the seed of David is to prove that His mother Mary is a descendant of David. However, the Bible offers no evidence of this. The Bible gives only two genealogies for Christ. The first is found in Matthew, and the second in Luke. Here are both genealogies purportedly tracing Christ to King David (edited for brevity):

Matthew 1:6-16:

“And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam.....And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23-31

“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli....which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David”

As anyone can see, these verses tell nothing of Mary's ancestors. Absolutely nothing. This would the first time in all the history of the world that a woman's lineage is given without mentioning the woman. What makes this whole thing funny is that when you compare the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke you will find several contradictions:

First, Mathew claims that the father of Joseph (Mary's husband) is Jacob, while Luke claims Joseph's father was Heli. Matthew 1:16 says: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” However, Luke 3:23 says: “ And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.”

Second, Matthew traces Joseph's linage through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), whereas Luke traces it through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). Of course, both passages cannot be true since that would be biologically impossible. It reminds me of that old song, “I'm My Own Grandpa.”

Third, both Matthew and Luke clearly trace the ancestry of Joseph. If the same ancestry applies to Mary, then Mary, the mother of Jesus, was intimately involved with her own brother or half-brother. Anyone who has read the Old Testament knows this is a no-no.

The only specific Biblical reference to Mary's genealogy is found in Luke 1:36, which says that Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, and Luke 1:5 which says that Elisabeth was of the daughter of Aaron (of the house of Levi, not Judah). Since one's ancestry is traced through male descendants, and not female, Luke shows that Mary would of the tribe of Levi just as her cousin Elisabeth was, and not of the tribe of Judah as David was. The Qur'an states clearly that Mary was in fact of the daughters of Aaron, from the tribe of Levi:

“And she came to her people with him, carrying him [Jesus] with her. They said: O Marium [Mary]! surely you have done a strange thing. O sister of Haroun [Aaron]! your father was not a bad man, nor, was your mother an unchaste woman.” See the Qur'an, Sura 19, Ayat 27, 28 (explanatory insertions my own).

There is another another major problem with claiming that Matthew traces Mary's ancestry back to King David. In Matthew 1:12, the given lineage from King David to Joseph (and supposedly to Mary) includes Jechonias. Now the Old Testament prohibits any seed of Jechonia (a.k.a. Jechonias and Coniah) from ascending to the throne of David:

“Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” (Jeremiah 22:28-30).

Of course, there is also an additional problem with Luke's account of Christ's ancestry. Luke traces Mary's genealogy to King David through David's son Nathan; however, the Old Testament says that the Messiah would be the seed of David's other son Solomon (1 Chronicles 28:5; 1 Chronicles 29:1 and 1 Chronicles 29:24). So even of the lineage given in Luke applied to Mary (which it does not), her son is not qualified to sit on the throne of David.

In conclusion, there is nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - in the Bible which traces Mary's lineage to King David. But if I'm wrong, answer this one question for me: What is the name of Mary's father? Or try this one: Where in the Bible does it specifically state that Mary was of the house of David? If you have found such a reference, I will confess to the world that you are more knowledgeable about the Bible than I am. All you have to do is cite the verse which supports your claim.

The best that any Christian can do is to make an illogical claim that Mary had to be of the lineage of David because she was Christ's mother and Christ had to be of the lineage of David. That nonsense doesn't work for me or anyone else with at least the minimal cognitive abilities of the average 12-year old.

There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, if anything, the Bible proves He is not.
 Quoting: The Professor 660063


Nice but I tend to disagree just a little. I believe christ is of the serpant seed, interested? benpadiah.com
seraph
User ID: 851849
United States
01/02/2010 02:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
[link to www.benpadiah.com] Also considering god told moses to "crucify" a brazen serpant to drive off the snakes in the old testament book of exodus was obviously a foreshadowing of christ
The Professor (OP)
User ID: 660063
United States
01/02/2010 02:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
What is the name of Mary's father?


mm Kevin?
 Quoting: Sir Marmaduke Tweng


You win!
The Professor (OP)
User ID: 660063
United States
01/02/2010 03:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Nice but I tend to disagree just a little. I believe christ is of the serpant seed, interested? benpadiah.com
 Quoting: seraph 851849


Thanks for the link. There is just too much information to take in all at once, so I will go there later. I did enjoy reading about the theory of God and Tesla.
Sir Marmaduke Tweng

User ID: 773761
United Kingdom
01/02/2010 03:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
What is the name of Mary's father?


mm Kevin?


You win!
 Quoting: The Professor 660063

Thanks Prof. Have 5 stars on me
Egger of the Prophets of the Lard and pooh pooh on your JuJu since 1000000 B.C.E

This is how Liberty dies-To the sound of rapturous applause...

Proud member of the GLP Atheist Alliance
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 825010
United States
01/02/2010 03:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Professor,

Joseph and Mary came from the line of David. Joseph was
Our Lord's foster father so it is very important that Mary
descended from David.

I posted the same at Jesus on the Cross thread.

Numbers 36:6 And this is the law promulgated by the Lord touching the daughters of Salphaad: Let them marry to whom they will, only so that it be to men of their own tribe. 7 Lest the possession of the children of Israel be mingled from tribe to tribe. For all men shall marry wives of their own tribe and kindred: 8 And all women shall take husbands of the same tribe: that the inheritance may remain in the families, 9 And that the tribes be not mingled one with another, but remain so 10 As they were separated by the Lord. And the daughters of Salphaad did as was commanded:

11 And Maala, and Thersa, and Hegla, and Melcha, and Noa were married to the sons of their uncle by their father, 12 Of the family of Manasses, who was the son of Joseph: and the possession that had been allotted to them, remained in the tribe and family of their father.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 854809
United States
01/02/2010 05:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
[link to www.hfbcbiblestudy.org]
The Professor (OP)
User ID: 660063
United States
01/02/2010 05:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Professor,

Joseph and Mary came from the line of David. Joseph was
Our Lord's foster father so it is very important that Mary
descended from David.

I posted the same at Jesus on the Cross thread.

Numbers 36:6 And this is the law promulgated by the Lord touching the daughters of Salphaad: Let them marry to whom they will, only so that it be to men of their own tribe. 7 Lest the possession of the children of Israel be mingled from tribe to tribe. For all men shall marry wives of their own tribe and kindred: 8 And all women shall take husbands of the same tribe: that the inheritance may remain in the families, 9 And that the tribes be not mingled one with another, but remain so 10 As they were separated by the Lord. And the daughters of Salphaad did as was commanded:

11 And Maala, and Thersa, and Hegla, and Melcha, and Noa were married to the sons of their uncle by their father, 12 Of the family of Manasses, who was the son of Joseph: and the possession that had been allotted to them, remained in the tribe and family of their father.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 825010


You gotta be kidding me!

There is nothing in your article which mentions anything about Mary. You cannot possibly believe that the verses you quote offer the slightest evidence of either Mary's or Joseph's lineage to King David.

I asked for Biblical proof of Christ's lineage to King David and you have offered nothing but irrelevant gibberish.

On a plus note, at least you didn't attempt to challenge my analysis that the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke do not in any way establish that Mary is of the house of David.

Try again, and this time look for a verse that actually says something about Mary's ancestry. Don't bother me with verses about Joseph because every Christian knows that Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, so that the "seed of David" could not have passed through him. Being Christ's foster father means nothing.
Lotus Feet

User ID: 776324
United Kingdom
01/02/2010 05:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Many prophecies were attributed to Jesus but many were not about him because they relate to the last days of the end times.

For instance Christians claim that Jesus was the righteous and suffering servant but yet the NT also claims that he did not have an offspring. If he didn't have a child then he was not the righteous and suffering servant.

Also prophet Isaiah predicted a skin disease and there is no mention in any texts that I have viewed that Jesus the Christ experienced any diseases himself. This is another reason why the Jewish people did not accept him as their messiah IMHV. However, we now know that the Dead Sea Scrolls predicts more than one for the last days and Jesus himself predicted a 'three in one" and outlined the three different aspects of the one that would come. Including the age of when their work would begin and finish.

Lotus

Last Edited by Lotus Feet on 01/02/2010 06:03 AM
i love satan
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 855196
Australia
01/02/2010 06:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Many prophecies were attributed to Jesus but many were not about him because they relate to the last days of the end times.

For instance Christians claim that Jesus was the righteous and suffering servant but yet the NT also claims that he did not have an offspring. If he didn't have a child then he was not the righteous and suffering servant.

Also prophet Isaiah predicted a skin disease and there is no mention in any texts that I have viewed that Jesus the Christ experienced any diseases himself. This is another reason why the Jewish people did not accept him as their messiah IMHV. However, we now know that the Dead Sea Scrolls predicts more than one for the last days.

Lotus
 Quoting: Lotus Feet


..and rightly so, because he didn't meet the criteria
9teen.47™

User ID: 855204
United Kingdom
01/02/2010 06:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
WebBible Encyclopedia
Home



Mary (mother of Jesus)
Hebrew: Miriam.

Mary was the wife of Joseph and the mother of Jesus Christ, who was conceived within her by the Holy Spirit when she was a virgin. She is often called the “Virgin Mary,” though never in Scripture are those two words put together as a proper name (Matt. 2:11; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27; Acts 1:14).

Little is known of her personal history. Her genealogy is given in Luke 3 (see below). She was of the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David (Psalm 132:11; Luke 1:32). She was connected by marriage with Elisabeth, who was of the lineage of Aaron (Luke 1:36).

While she resided at Nazareth with her parents, before she became the wife of Joseph, the angel Gabriel announced to her that she was to be the mother of the promised Messiah (Luke 1:35). After this she went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was living with her husband Zacharias (probably at Juttah, Josh. 15:55; 21:16, in the neighborhood of Maon), at a considerable distance, about 100 miles, from Nazareth. Immediately on entering the house she was saluted by Elisabeth as the mother of her Lord, and then immediately gave her hymn of thanksgiving (Luke 1:46-56; compare 1 Sam. 2:1-10). After three months Mary returned to Nazareth to her own home.

Joseph was supernaturally made aware (Matt. 1:18-25) of her condition, and took her to his own home. Soon after this the decree of Augustus (Luke 2:1) required that they should proceed to Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), some 80 or 90 miles from Nazareth; and while they were there they found shelter in the inn or khan provided for strangers (Luke 2:6,7). But as the inn was crowded, Mary had to retire to a place among the cattle, and there she brought forth her son, who was called Jesus (Matt. 1:21), because he was to save his people from their sins.

This was followed by the presentation in the temple, the flight into Egypt, and their return in the following year and residence at Nazareth (Matt. 2). There for thirty years Mary, the wife of Joseph the carpenter, resides, filling her own humble sphere, and pondering over the strange things that had happened to her. During these years only one event in the history of Jesus is recorded, viz., his going up to Jerusalem when twelve years of age, and his being found among the doctors in the temple (Luke 2:41-52). Probably also during this period Joseph died, for he is not again mentioned.

After the commencement of our Lord’s public ministry little notice is taken of Mary. She was present at the marriage in Cana. A year and a half after this we find her at Capernaum (Matt. 12:46,48,49), where Christ uttered the memorable words, “Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!” The next time we find her is at the cross along with her sister Mary, and Mary Magdalene, and Salome, and other women (John 19:26). From that hour John took her to his own abode. She was with the little company in the upper room after the Ascension (Acts 1:14). From this time she wholly disappears from public notice. The time and manner of her death are unknown.

Author: Matthew G. Easton, with editing by Paul S. Taylor.
MARY’S OTHER CHILDREN

Mary’s other sons included Joses (Joseph), James, Judas, and Simon. There were evidently sisters as well, but they are unnamed (Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3).

GENEAOLOGY

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].
Although Jesus was clearly legally related to both parents (to Mary, by being born from her, and to Joseph by legal adoption), was he genetically related to them or to his brothers and sisters?

For thousands of years, every human child has been born with an inherited sin nature and sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). This is a result of our sinful first parents, Adam and Eve to whom we are all genetically related. Each generation (without exception) has sinned (Rom. 3:23) and passed on its sinful nature and the curse of death, to each succeeding generation (the biblical doctrine of imputation of sin - Romans 5:12-19). There is only one exception in history. Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.

■Ever since the Creation, each subsequent life has been created at the moment of conception. Scientifically, the new entity begins at the moment the DNA of man and woman combine. This was not the case with Jesus. As a spirit and part of the Trinity, Jesus existed before the Creation of the world. In fact, John reveals that he is the Creator (John 1).

■Furthermore, the physical body of Jesus as born in Bethlehem was clearly a special creation of God, placed in Mary’s womb. This is the biblical doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

Thus, neither Christ’s spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29). (For further explanation, see: CREATION AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH and WHEN GOD BECAME MAN]

Author: Paul S. Taylor.
ALSO SEE:

■Messiah
■How do we know that Jesus was the Messiah?
■List of Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ
■Answers to objections raised by some Jews


-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------



Christian Answers Network HOMEPAGE and DIRECTORYPlease report any technical problems or content errors.
WebBible™ and ChristianAnswers.Net are ministries of Films for Christ®.


…an educational mega-site designed for the entire family
Christian Answers® Network™ experts tackle your tough questions about life, the Bible, and the Christian faith.

Last Edited by 9teen.47™ on 01/02/2010 06:07 AM
Zec 12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
Psa 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the nations that forget God.
Jer 6:2 I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate [woman].
STOCK UP NOW. You should have at least 6 months worth of basics for every member of your household. Stay away from crowds when trouble starts, do not forget water storage, tobacco is worth more than gold or silver, and be kind to hungry children.
Lotis Gum
User ID: 854474
Australia
01/02/2010 06:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Christians insist that Christ MUST be of the seed of David. Since it must be conceded that Joseph is not the father of Jesus, the only way to establish that Christ is of the seed of David is to prove that His mother Mary is a descendant of David. However, the Bible offers no evidence of this. The Bible gives only two genealogies for Christ. The first is found in Matthew, and the second in Luke. Here are both genealogies purportedly tracing Christ to King David (edited for brevity):

Matthew 1:6-16:

“And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam.....And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23-31

“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli....which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David”

As anyone can see, these verses tell nothing of Mary's ancestors. Absolutely nothing. This would the first time in all the history of the world that a woman's lineage is given without mentioning the woman. What makes this whole thing funny is that when you compare the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke you will find several contradictions:

First, Mathew claims that the father of Joseph (Mary's husband) is Jacob, while Luke claims Joseph's father was Heli. Matthew 1:16 says: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” However, Luke 3:23 says: “ And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.”

Second, Matthew traces Joseph's linage through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), whereas Luke traces it through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). Of course, both passages cannot be true since that would be biologically impossible. It reminds me of that old song, “I'm My Own Grandpa.”

Third, both Matthew and Luke clearly trace the ancestry of Joseph. If the same ancestry applies to Mary, then Mary, the mother of Jesus, was intimately involved with her own brother or half-brother. Anyone who has read the Old Testament knows this is a no-no.

The only specific Biblical reference to Mary's genealogy is found in Luke 1:36, which says that Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, and Luke 1:5 which says that Elisabeth was of the daughter of Aaron (of the house of Levi, not Judah). Since one's ancestry is traced through male descendants, and not female, Luke shows that Mary would of the tribe of Levi just as her cousin Elisabeth was, and not of the tribe of Judah as David was. The Qur'an states clearly that Mary was in fact of the daughters of Aaron, from the tribe of Levi:

“And she came to her people with him, carrying him [Jesus] with her. They said: O Marium [Mary]! surely you have done a strange thing. O sister of Haroun [Aaron]! your father was not a bad man, nor, was your mother an unchaste woman.” See the Qur'an, Sura 19, Ayat 27, 28 (explanatory insertions my own).

There is another another major problem with claiming that Matthew traces Mary's ancestry back to King David. In Matthew 1:12, the given lineage from King David to Joseph (and supposedly to Mary) includes Jechonias. Now the Old Testament prohibits any seed of Jechonia (a.k.a. Jechonias and Coniah) from ascending to the throne of David:

“Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” (Jeremiah 22:28-30).

Of course, there is also an additional problem with Luke's account of Christ's ancestry. Luke traces Mary's genealogy to King David through David's son Nathan; however, the Old Testament says that the Messiah would be the seed of David's other son Solomon (1 Chronicles 28:5; 1 Chronicles 29:1 and 1 Chronicles 29:24). So even of the lineage given in Luke applied to Mary (which it does not), her son is not qualified to sit on the throne of David.

In conclusion, there is nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - in the Bible which traces Mary's lineage to King David. But if I'm wrong, answer this one question for me: What is the name of Mary's father? Or try this one: Where in the Bible does it specifically state that Mary was of the house of David? If you have found such a reference, I will confess to the world that you are more knowledgeable about the Bible than I am. All you have to do is cite the verse which supports your claim.

The best that any Christian can do is to make an illogical claim that Mary had to be of the lineage of David because she was Christ's mother and Christ had to be of the lineage of David. That nonsense doesn't work for me or anyone else with at least the minimal cognitive abilities of the average 12-year old.

There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, if anything, the Bible proves He is not.
 Quoting: The Professor 660063



THIS IS WEIRD , I WAS HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH MY SON ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY. I ALSO PROFFERED THE THOUGHT THAT, WOULDN'T HE HAVE HAD TO BE A CLONE OF MARY IF HE ONLY HAD HER D.N.A. I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE ON THIS. SOMEONE MAY BE ABLE TO CORRECT ME.
Ice
ice

User ID: 729060
United States
01/02/2010 06:17 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
[link to www.scripturessay.com]


seems to handle the subject well
Chill - Enjoy - Relax
The Professor (OP)
User ID: 660063
United States
01/02/2010 07:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 854809


Thanks for the interesting link. I have only a few comments.

First, the link says that the genealogy in Matthew established the LEGAL royal blood line through Joseph, which is an argument I've read hundreds of times before. However, since Joseph was not the physical father of Christ, the “seed of David” could not pass through him. The Bible makes no mention of the requirement of a purely legal blood line. The "fruit of one's loins" is a physical status, not a legal one.

Second, the Article also says that Mary's mother was of the House of Arron so that Mary was also of the house of Aaron/Levi as I suggested. However the author says that Mary was also of the house of Judah through her father and that “The blood line of Nathan, the son of David, is through Mary's father.” However, there are several problems with this conclusion.

As I have already shown, the bloodline (seed of David) was to be through David's son Solomon, not his son Nathan. Additionally, the genealogy given in Luke does makes no mention of Mary, nor does it identify Mary's father. The genealogy in Luke traces the ancestry of Nathan to Joseph, but not to Mary. If Joseph and Mary have the same genealogies their relationship is incestuous.

If Mary's father was of the house of David, where is that fact stated in the Bible? What's his name?

I have provided verses showing that the throne of David would pass through Solomon. If the throne of David is to pass through Nathan as your link claims, where is that fact stated in the Bible? Did God change His mind?

I said there was no evidence in the Bible which proved that either Joseph or Mary could have passed the seed of David to Christ. The link you provided was interesting and I thank you, but it did nothing to make me change my mind.

One parting thought. Over the years I have read dozens of schemes employed in an attempt to find Biblical evidence of a bloodline between either Joseph or Mary and King David. There are four theories involving the Book of Luke: (1) it is the genealogy of Joseph; (2) it is the genealogy of Mary; (3) it is the genealogy of Mary's father; and (4) it is not a legitimate genealogy of anyone. The later theory is based on the fact that the genealogy is introduced by the words "as was supposed."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 855279
India
01/02/2010 08:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Hey Prof,
Check this out-
1. Abraham , Yitzhak, Yacov, Yahudah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse and David= 14.
2. Sholomo, Rehoboam, AbiYah, Asa, Yehoshaphat, Yehoram, Uzziah, Yotham ,Ahaz, Hezekiah, Mannaseh, Amon, Yosiah and Yeconiah(Exile to Babylon)=14.

Then we have Matthew 1:17 which explicitly says that one should be able to find 14 generations from the exile to the Messiah.
3. Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Akim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Yacov, Yousef, Miriam(Mary) followed by the Messiah=14 generations.
"The husband of Mary" part can also be rendered as "The Givra of Mary" where "Givra" can mean "Husband" or "Lord/Father".

It's pays RICHLY if you sometimes ignore King Jimmy and his excellent translators. Can't really blame them when they ignore the richness of the ancient eastern languages, choosing instead to have their expert committees to arrive on a consensus to decide the correct rendering(s).
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 779557
United States
01/02/2010 08:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
the OT belongs to the Most High.
the NT belongs to satan.
simple as that...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 745632
United States
01/02/2010 08:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
What??? No birth certificate to prove His lineage? Sounds familiar.
SnakeAirlines

User ID: 651287
United States
01/02/2010 08:11 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
What??? No birth certificate to prove His lineage? Sounds familiar.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 745632


You have to take both on faith...

chuckle
"Hold my cat while I bring in my tomato plant. That chemtrail looks like an earthquake chemtrail"

deanoZXT-07/20/2014 07:48 PM
Ice
ice

User ID: 729060
United States
01/02/2010 08:17 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
the OT belongs to the Most High.
the NT belongs to satan.
simple as that...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 779557



thats just stupid
Chill - Enjoy - Relax
Ice
ice

User ID: 729060
United States
01/02/2010 08:18 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Jesus is the beginning and the end!

Those of you that hate Christ will have to deal with this fatal flaw in your walk.

It's a daily walk and hope for a new day is always possible!
Chill - Enjoy - Relax
3*8** aka MagiChristmas

User ID: 554973
United States
01/02/2010 08:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Since one's ancestry is traced through male descendants, and not female,
 Quoting: The Professor **00*3 speedbanan
 

So clearly no son of Joseph could rule upon that throne. So lets look at the genealogy given in Luke 3:23-38 which makes clear the lineage of Mary through King David, but not through Jechoniah. So Mary is of a good lineage, but she is a woman and cannot pass along a birthright such as one to the throne. In fact, as the lineage is traced through the father she had nothing to offer in way of birthright. So what gave Mary this right? It is because of the law laid out in Numbers 27 as shown below.

Number 27:1-8 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these [are] the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, [by] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us [therefore] a possession among the brethren of our father.

And Moses brought their cause before the LORD. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. - [link to 74.125.155.132]

3*8**
The deception continues to crumble.
Thread: Tips for improving the GLP experience.
Christ was mischaracterized to the point of Crucifixion.
3*8** aka MagiChristmas

User ID: 554973
United States
01/02/2010 08:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
[link to www.google.com]

3*8**
The deception continues to crumble.
Thread: Tips for improving the GLP experience.
Christ was mischaracterized to the point of Crucifixion.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 754098
United States
01/02/2010 09:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
GENEAOLOGY

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].
Although Jesus was clearly legally related to both parents (to Mary, by being born from her, and to Joseph by legal adoption), was he genetically related to them or to his brothers and sisters?

For thousands of years, every human child has been born with an inherited sin nature and sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). This is a result of our sinful first parents, Adam and Eve to whom we are all genetically related. Each generation (without exception) has sinned (Rom. 3:23) and passed on its sinful nature and the curse of death, to each succeeding generation (the biblical doctrine of imputation of sin - Romans 5:12-19). There is only one exception in history. Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.

■Ever since the Creation, each subsequent life has been created at the moment of conception. Scientifically, the new entity begins at the moment the DNA of man and woman combine. This was not the case with Jesus. As a spirit and part of the Trinity, Jesus existed before the Creation of the world. In fact, John reveals that he is the Creator (John 1).

■Furthermore, the physical body of Jesus as born in Bethlehem was clearly a special creation of God, placed in Mary’s womb. This is the biblical doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

Thus, neither Christ’s spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29). (For further explanation, see: CREATION AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH and WHEN GOD BECAME MAN]

Author: Paul S. Taylor.

 Quoting: 9teen.47™


ZINNGGGG!!
Professor my ass.
The Professor (OP)
User ID: 660063
United States
01/02/2010 09:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
GENEAOLOGY

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].
 Quoting: 9teen.47™


I claimed that there was nothing in the Bible which proved a bloodline between either Joseph or Mary and King David, and I am correct. You claim that Luke shows Joseph was Heli's son-in-law, thus proving that his wife Mary would be a descendant of David. However, Luke does not say Joseph was Heli's son-in-law. Luke uses the following specific words to describe the relationship between Joseph and Heil “Joseph, which was the son of Heli.” You claim that the verse was improperly translated which I find interesting. If the Bible doesn't mean exactly what it says, it cannot possibly be the complete, inspired and inerrant word of God; therefore none of the Bible's many verses proves anything.

Your claim is based upon the fact that the original documents attributed to Luke make does not use the word “son” but you don't say what words were used in the originals to describe the relationship between Joseph and Heli. I find that rather odd. You also claim that the authors of Matthew and Luke could not have made such a grave mistake as showing that Joseph had 2 different fathers, which I though was clever. You see, according to the Bible, they did make such a blunder. This would not be the only conflict between Matthew and Luke, and you should know this. I will give you just one example. When Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Matthew has him riding on two animals, but Luke has him riding only one. The greatest conflict between Matthew and Luke is in the Birth stories, but that is for another time.

Let me be clear on this: you are describing the Bible the way you say it should be, while I describe the Bible the way it really is. If the Bible means something else in the “original” Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, change the book so it reflects the true word of God instead of something else. There may be a document somewhere that says that Mary is a descendant of King David, but the words never made it into the Bible. There may be a document somewhere that says Joseph is Heli's son-in-law, but those words never made it into the Bible.

In conclusion, nowhere within the pages of the Book Christians call the Bible is there any evidence of a bloodline between either Joseph or Mary and King David which would allow Christ to ascend to the throne of David.
LEO-

User ID: 745151
Finland
01/02/2010 09:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Why don't you google Ring of Power documentary Part III: TRAIL OF THE PHARAOHS
The Professor (OP)
User ID: 660063
United States
01/02/2010 09:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
GENEAOLOGY

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].
Although Jesus was clearly legally related to both parents (to Mary, by being born from her, and to Joseph by legal adoption), was he genetically related to them or to his brothers and sisters?

For thousands of years, every human child has been born with an inherited sin nature and sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). This is a result of our sinful first parents, Adam and Eve to whom we are all genetically related. Each generation (without exception) has sinned (Rom. 3:23) and passed on its sinful nature and the curse of death, to each succeeding generation (the biblical doctrine of imputation of sin - Romans 5:12-19). There is only one exception in history. Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.

ZINNGGGG!!
Professor my ass.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 754098


Not even close my friend. Find someone else to ZING!

The Professor part is true, or rather was. I still use the title.
The Professor (OP)
User ID: 660063
United States
01/02/2010 09:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
It's time to say goodbye. I have had a lot of fun with this thread, and now It's time for me to go. You people have caused my fingers to get numb from typing. Some of you have made excellent arguments in support of your position, and even if I disagree with you I respect your presentation. I will let others have the last word.
Sugar

User ID: 851523
United States
01/02/2010 09:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
The absence of proof does not equate proof of absence.
SpiritofTruth NewJerUSAlemRuss

User ID: 855317
United States
01/02/2010 09:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Jesus celebrated the Holy days that King David did so they are in the same line.

MAR 1/14 ------ PASSOVER
MAR 1/15-21 --- FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD
MAY 3/8 ------- PENTECOST
SEPT 7/1 ------- FEAST OF TRUMPETS
SEPT 7/10 ------ DAY OF ATONEMENT
SEPT 7/15-21 --- FEAST OF TABERNACLES
SEPT 7/22 ------ LAST GREAT DAY


Jesus IS the Holy Days





Dec Wed 10/18

News